On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 2:08 AM Peter Bowyer <phpmailingli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 08:59, Marco Pivetta <ocram...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Did the namespaces ship sail forever? Can we just have those instead, > > please? > > > > To mix metaphors: it sailed, shot down in fiery flames. > > Unfortunately. > > Peter
If we add significantly more functions to the proposal (which makes it riskier from a time investment standpoint), then I think the case for a namespace makes sense. Nobody wants to add a namespace for one or two things. If there are 10+ things it's a bit more convincing. This is a case where having a proposed API and impl in PHP-land is probably sufficient enough to make an RFC vote; the conversion to C can happen if it passes. Here is a sampling of functions from my own (private) iterable library: - all_values - any_value - no_value - one_value - to_iterator - filter_values - for_each_value - map_values - reduce_values - zip_values The values suffix is because there are variants that work with more than just the values. Being value-centric is great, but we must leave design room for the rest for when they are needed. Anyway, the key point I'm making is that I think a larger RFC has a better shot of passing if we want to namespace it. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
